Time to get with the times and learn from power trails.

[+Roman!]

I know, way back when you had to hike to a cache uphill both ways in the snow life was good but things change.

 

One of the changes has been power trails and they even come with their own accepted rules.

 

Love them or hate them, there is one thing that should be mandatory that we take away from them.

 

We need a rule that if one can not find a cache within 5 minutes they are obligated to leave a throw-down. This will prevent a lot of unnecessary wear and tear onboth man-made objects and mother nature, surely there can be no objection to preventing unwanted damage.

 

This alone may save the future of geocaching as we know it.

[jholly]

I know, way back when you had to hike to a cache uphill both ways in the snow life was good but things change.

 

One of the changes has been power trails and they even come with their own accepted rules.

 

Love them or hate them, there is one thing that should be mandatory that we take away from them.

 

We need a rule that if one can not find a cache within 5 minutes they are obligated to leave a throw-down. This will prevent a lot of unnecessary wear and tear onboth man-made objects and mother nature, surely there can be no objection to preventing unwanted damage.

 

This alone may save the future of geocaching as we know it.

 

What's wrong with a DNF?

[+fizzymagic]

You know, the forums seemed more productive for a few days there.

 

Isn't there some kind of rule about obvious trolling?

[+stijnhommes]

We need a rule that if one can not find a cache within 5 minutes they are obligated to leave a throw-down. This will prevent a lot of unnecessary wear and tear onboth man-made objects and mother nature, surely there can be no objection to preventing unwanted damage.

Leaving another container because you can't find the original does not prevent unnecessary wear and tear. It actually means people will leave more containers at the site, which - in mother nature's eyes - is trash.

 

I agree that power trail caches should be easy to find, but if it isn't, it's the fault of the CO and no one else. Also, they are the only one responsible for maintenance on the long list of trail caches.

[+The_Incredibles_]

Isn't there some kind of rule about obvious trolling?

 

Apparently they've made an exception in the OP's case cause we get a thread like this every couple weeks or so.

[Clan Riffster]

We need a rule that if one can not find a cache within 5 minutes they are obligated to leave a throw-down.

While I'll grant you that Groundspeak caved in to the almighty dollar some time back, getting rid of the "Do not hide some crappy film can every 600' just because you can" guideline, (my personal favorite, BTW), that does not mean they have to continue the devolution of this game down to the lowest common denominator.

 

Let's pretend that TPTB did institute such an idiotic rule.

 

Who's gonna enforce it?

[+Crow-T-Robot]

My philosophy on power trails is to do whatever hijinks you want with them...just don't try to bring those bad habits over into real geocaching.

[+Don_J]

I know, way back when you had to hike to a cache uphill both ways in the snow life was good but things change.

 

One of the changes has been power trails and they even come with their own accepted rules.

 

Love them or hate them, there is one thing that should be mandatory that we take away from them.

 

We need a rule that if one can not find a cache within 5 minutes they are obligated to leave a throw-down. This will prevent a lot of unnecessary wear and tear onboth man-made objects and mother nature, surely there can be no objection to preventing unwanted damage.

 

This alone may save the future of geocaching as we know it.

 

Your bait stinks. But, I bet you catch a lot of fish.

[+Beach_hut]

Don't be ridiculous. I would rebut your arguments but as I know you're only putting forward ridiculous propositions for people's reactions, rather than for the ideas themselves, I'm not going to put my thoughts forward.

 

But if you run a search on all the forum posts as to why throw-downs are a bad idea, you'll sum it up.

[+wmpastor]

I know, way back when you had to hike to a cache uphill both ways in the snow life was good but things change.

 

One of the changes has been power trails and they even come with their own accepted rules.

 

Love them or hate them, there is one thing that should be mandatory that we take away from them.

 

We need a rule that if one can not find a cache within 5 minutes they are obligated to leave a throw-down. This will prevent a lot of unnecessary wear and tear on both man-made objects and mother nature, surely there can be no objection to preventing unwanted damage.

 

This alone may save the future of geocaching as we know it.

Hilarious, and all in good fun!

Some commentators are such dour sourpusses, aren't they, Roman!?

 

[+wmpastor]

We need a rule that if one can not find a cache within 5 minutes they are obligated to leave a throw-down.

While I'll grant you that Groundspeak caved in to the almighty dollar some time back, getting rid of the "Do not hide some crappy film can every 600' just because you can" guideline, (my personal favorite, BTW), that does not mean they have to continue the devolution of this game down to the lowest common denominator.

 

Let's pretend that TPTB did institute such an idiotic rule.

 

Who's gonna enforce it?

The next cacher! Anyone seeking a cache after a DNF must find BOTH caches - the original and the prior cacher's throwdown. If they find only one of the two, they must leave a throwdown. If they don't find either one, then they must leave two throwdowns.

 

Psst! This topic is meant to be ironic.

[+geodarts]

A repetitive thread. Perfect to discuss repetitive trails. Do enough of them and the world becomes a throw down. It may not save caching but it could save the film container industry in a digital age.

Edited May 18, 2013 by geodarts

[Mr.Yuck]

We need a rule that if one can not find a cache within 5 minutes they are obligated to leave a throw-down.

While I'll grant you that Groundspeak caved in to the almighty dollar some time back, getting rid of the "Do not hide some crappy film can every 600' just because you can" guideline, (my personal favorite, BTW), that does not mean they have to continue the devolution of this game down to the lowest common denominator.

 

Let's pretend that TPTB did institute such an idiotic rule.

 

Who's gonna enforce it?

 

You're paraphrasing, of course. It never actually said "some crappy film can". It would be pretty funny if it did though.

[team tisri]

I know, way back when you had to hike to a cache uphill both ways in the snow life was good but things change.

 

One of the changes has been power trails and they even come with their own accepted rules.

 

Love them or hate them, there is one thing that should be mandatory that we take away from them.

 

We need a rule that if one can not find a cache within 5 minutes they are obligated to leave a throw-down. This will prevent a lot of unnecessary wear and tear onboth man-made objects and mother nature, surely there can be no objection to preventing unwanted damage.

 

This alone may save the future of geocaching as we know it.

 

Makes sense, but I'd add a clause that said the throwdown cache had to be at least the size of an ammo can. Sooner or later there would be enough ammo cans that even Stevie Wonder could find one.

[+ChileHead]

My understanding of power trails is that if they go missing, most people actually never know so there is no need for dropping a new one. After the first 10-20 caches in a power trail, many people just drive by and claim the finds figuring it's no longer necessary to get out and grab the cache that they know is there.

 

I know of one guy who did one of those big power trails out west and actually stopped at each one. One he couldn't find and he posted a DNF on it. The cache owner congratulated him because the cache wasn't actually hidden, yet dozens of other people gleefully posted finds on it as they drove by doing only some of the caches in the big power trail.

[+cerberus1]

I know of one guy who did one of those big power trails out west and actually stopped at each one. One he couldn't find and he posted a DNF on it. The cache owner congratulated him because the cache wasn't actually hidden, yet dozens of other people gleefully posted finds on it as they drove by doing only some of the caches in the big power trail.

 

Funny and sad.

[+Zant264]

yet dozens of other people gleefully posted finds on it as they drove by doing only some of the caches in the big power trail.

 

I have been wondering how some people get 3459 finds in a year or two of caching. Some with 9875 finds as well in 4 or 5 years. Either you are retired and caching is all you do or a lot are just "I drove/walked/flew by it so I can log it".

[+cerberus1]

yet dozens of other people gleefully posted finds on it as they drove by doing only some of the caches in the big power trail.

 

I have been wondering how some people get 3459 finds in a year or two of caching. Some with 9875 finds as well in 4 or 5 years. Either you are retired and caching is all you do or a lot are just "I drove/walked/flew by it so I can log it".

This is a good day...

- How many folks have you noticed getting 3,459 in a year or two?

[+Roman!]

My understanding of power trails is that if they go missing, most people actually never know so there is no need for dropping a new one. After the first 10-20 caches in a power trail, many people just drive by and claim the finds figuring it's no longer necessary to get out and grab the cache that they know is there.

 

I know of one guy who did one of those big power trails out west and actually stopped at each one. One he couldn't find and he posted a DNF on it. The cache owner congratulated him because the cache wasn't actually hidden, yet dozens of other people gleefully posted finds on it as they drove by doing only some of the caches in the big power trail.

 

When I did route 66 in January I did DNF a few caches that we along the route but not part of the power trail.

 

I know, way back when you had to hike to a cache uphill both ways in the snow life was good but things change.

 

One of the changes has been power trails and they even come with their own accepted rules.

 

Love them or hate them, there is one thing that should be mandatory that we take away from them.

 

We need a rule that if one can not find a cache within 5 minutes they are obligated to leave a throw-down. This will prevent a lot of unnecessary wear and tear onboth man-made objects and mother nature, surely there can be no objection to preventing unwanted damage.

 

This alone may save the future of geocaching as we know it.

 

Makes sense, but I'd add a clause that said the throwdown cache had to be at least the size of an ammo can. Sooner or later there would be enough ammo cans that even Stevie Wonder could find one.

 

That would work and make all the oldtimers happy too.

 

As for the rest, I'm just making suggestions to protect our environment, that is important, no?

[+Roman!]

yet dozens of other people gleefully posted finds on it as they drove by doing only some of the caches in the big power trail.

 

I have been wondering how some people get 3459 finds in a year or two of caching. Some with 9875 finds as well in 4 or 5 years. Either you are retired and caching is all you do or a lot are just "I drove/walked/flew by it so I can log it".

 

Or you go on an awesome trip with your kids, have your son experience his first time driving on route 66 2 days before his 16th birthday and all in all have an awesome time as do your kids and then you spend a fun week with friends in Idaho.

 

Not too hard to do and easy to stamp/sign every sing logbook of every single cache you've been to.

[+NYPaddleCacher]

yet dozens of other people gleefully posted finds on it as they drove by doing only some of the caches in the big power trail.

 

I have been wondering how some people get 3459 finds in a year or two of caching. Some with 9875 finds as well in 4 or 5 years. Either you are retired and caching is all you do or a lot are just "I drove/walked/flew by it so I can log it".

 

Or you go on an awesome trip with your kids, have your son experience his first time driving on route 66 2 days before his 16th birthday and all in all have an awesome time as do your kids and then you spend a fun week with friends in Idaho.

 

How much less awesome would it have been if, instead of finding 3000 caches, you spent the same amount of time and only found 300? It seems to me that you'd be spending a lot more time actually interacting with your family if you found fewer caches.

 

 

[+GeoTrekker26]

I know, way back when you had to hike to a cache uphill both ways in the snow life was good but things change.

 

One of the changes has been power trails and they even come with their own accepted rules.

 

Love them or hate them, there is one thing that should be mandatory that we take away from them.

 

We need a rule that if one can not find a cache within 5 minutes they are obligated to leave a throw-down. This will prevent a lot of unnecessary wear and tear onboth man-made objects and mother nature, surely there can be no objection to preventing unwanted damage.

 

This alone may save the future of geocaching as we know it.

 

I guess the time has come to check out the filters in the forum and see if a user can be ignored.

[+The A-Team]

I guess the time has come to check out the filters in the forum and see if a user can be ignored.

You can. At the top-right of any forum page, beside your username, there's a little down-arrow. Click that, and then "My Settings". In the page that comes up, click the "Profile" tab. There you can add a username to ignore. Don't forget the "!".

 

I guess if Roman! had his way, every geocache would be a traditional, would contain an FTF code that both you and the CO are required to use under penalty of banishment, and there would be half-a-dozen containers in the vicinity of GZ.

 

[+wimseyguy]

[team tisri]

I know of one guy who did one of those big power trails out west and actually stopped at each one. One he couldn't find and he posted a DNF on it. The cache owner congratulated him because the cache wasn't actually hidden, yet dozens of other people gleefully posted finds on it as they drove by doing only some of the caches in the big power trail.

 

I often wonder why you'd even bother driving past them if you're going to claim them without actually finding them.

[team tisri]

My understanding of power trails is that if they go missing, most people actually never know so there is no need for dropping a new one. After the first 10-20 caches in a power trail, many people just drive by and claim the finds figuring it's no longer necessary to get out and grab the cache that they know is there.

 

I know of one guy who did one of those big power trails out west and actually stopped at each one. One he couldn't find and he posted a DNF on it. The cache owner congratulated him because the cache wasn't actually hidden, yet dozens of other people gleefully posted finds on it as they drove by doing only some of the caches in the big power trail.

 

When I did route 66 in January I did DNF a few caches that we along the route but not part of the power trail.

 

I know, way back when you had to hike to a cache uphill both ways in the snow life was good but things change.

 

One of the changes has been power trails and they even come with their own accepted rules.

 

Love them or hate them, there is one thing that should be mandatory that we take away from them.

 

We need a rule that if one can not find a cache within 5 minutes they are obligated to leave a throw-down. This will prevent a lot of unnecessary wear and tear onboth man-made objects and mother nature, surely there can be no objection to preventing unwanted damage.

 

This alone may save the future of geocaching as we know it.

 

Makes sense, but I'd add a clause that said the throwdown cache had to be at least the size of an ammo can. Sooner or later there would be enough ammo cans that even Stevie Wonder could find one.

 

That would work and make all the oldtimers happy too.

 

As for the rest, I'm just making suggestions to protect our environment, that is important, no?

 

Not really, environmental protection comes a distant second to getting that all-important smiley. That's why you get to totally trash sensitive areas looking for a film pot that isn't there. For bonus points you trample rare plants or pull all the stones out of a dry stone wall and put them back in the wrong places.

 

Better to protect the environment with lots of throw-down ammo cans. That way people only have to pull a few stones out before they find an ammo can and you can still get bonus points by dumping the ammo can on top of an endangered plant and covering it with rocks.

[+ChileHead]

I know of one guy who did one of those big power trails out west and actually stopped at each one. One he couldn't find and he posted a DNF on it. The cache owner congratulated him because the cache wasn't actually hidden, yet dozens of other people gleefully posted finds on it as they drove by doing only some of the caches in the big power trail.

 

I often wonder why you'd even bother driving past them if you're going to claim them without actually finding them.

 

My guess is people plan on finding them. If there is a 1000 cache power trail, after a few dozen people stop stopping at each one, and maybe stop at every third/fifth/tenth cache, or those that look interesting, figuring it's all about the experience and being there, rather than stopping at each one. At least I can see that happening. I think if I did a big trail like that I'd stop after about 20 and wonder WTF I was doing this for, and turn around and find some real caches.

[+BAMBOOZLE]

I know, way back when you had to hike to a cache uphill both ways in the snow life was good but things change.

 

One of the changes has been power trails and they even come with their own accepted rules.

 

Love them or hate them, there is one thing that should be mandatory that we take away from them.

 

We need a rule that if one can not find a cache within 5 minutes they are obligated to leave a throw-down. This will prevent a lot of unnecessary wear and tear onboth man-made objects and mother nature, surely there can be no objection to preventing unwanted damage.

 

This alone may save the future of geocaching as we know it.

 

Sounds good to me.....power trails are a separate animal. If you won't replace lost containers and wet logs you shouldn't do a power trail.

I'll be leaving next weekend for our yearly caching vacation and , as always , I'll have a sack of logs and containers in the truck.

[AZcachemeister]

 

Sounds good to me.....power trails are a separate animal. If you won't replace lost containers and wet logs you shouldn't do a power trail.

I'll be leaving next weekend for our yearly caching vacation and , as always , I'll have a sack of logs and containers in the truck.

 

Yes, they are!

But why 'do one' if you are going to engage in a process that can only slow you down?

 

If you don't see it within 30 seconds, drop a fresh one! Be sure to have it in your hand and ready to drop right away, there is NO TIME to walk back to the truck here.

 

If the log is wet, don't waste precious 'smilie makin' time' fishing around in your bag for a dry log to attempt to cram in there. This doesn't EVEN take into account the time spent assessing whether the log is WET ENOUGH to warrant replacement. Not to mention the precious seconds attempting to figure out if it's going to get wetter, or maybe it's actually drying out of it's own accord?

Probably it's just best to not go within three weeks of the last rain so the log will have had time to dry out and there will be no reason to replace it.

[+briansnat]

My understanding of power trails is that if they go missing, most people actually never know so there is no need for dropping a new one. After the first 10-20 caches in a power trail, many people just drive by and claim the finds figuring it's no longer necessary to get out and grab the cache that they know is there.

 

I know of one guy who did one of those big power trails out west and actually stopped at each one. One he couldn't find and he posted a DNF on it. The cache owner congratulated him because the cache wasn't actually hidden, yet dozens of other people gleefully posted finds on it as they drove by doing only some of the caches in the big power trail.

 

That's why I think power trails should be moved to their own website. Power trail "caching" has very little to do with geocaching. With the latter the point is to actually find geocaches.

[+BAMBOOZLE]

My understanding of power trails is that if they go missing, most people actually never know so there is no need for dropping a new one. After the first 10-20 caches in a power trail, many people just drive by and claim the finds figuring it's no longer necessary to get out and grab the cache that they know is there.

 

I know of one guy who did one of those big power trails out west and actually stopped at each one. One he couldn't find and he posted a DNF on it. The cache owner congratulated him because the cache wasn't actually hidden, yet dozens of other people gleefully posted finds on it as they drove by doing only some of the caches in the big power trail.

 

That's why I think power trails should be moved to their own website. Power trail "caching" has very little to do with geocaching. With the latter the point is to actually find geocaches.

 

I agree with the basic concept. I think it could be done from the GC website though. ANY cache within .2 of another cache would be designated a PT cache which would be equal to 1/10 ( or 1/20 ? ) of a smile'e. Once you had 10 mini smile'es they would automatically become one full smile'e. Or have a separate designation where a PT find would get you a green smile'e. While they're at it make a FTF a red smile'e.

[+cheech gang]

That's why I think power trails should be moved to their own website. Power trail "caching" has very little to do with geocaching. With the latter the point is to actually find geocaches.

 

That kind of logical thinking could get you nominated for geocacher of the year for 2013.

[nonaeroterraqueous]

ANY cache within .2 of another cache would be designated a PT cache which would be equal to 1/10 ( or 1/20 ? ) of a smile'e. Once you had 10 mini smile'es they would automatically become one full smile'e.

 

That's pretty generous. I would have required the entire power trail to be found to get one smiley. It's a single endeavor, so it deserves one credit.

[+NYPaddleCacher]

 

As for the rest, I'm just making suggestions to protect our environment, that is important, no?

 

If you really wanted to protect the environment you really should be advocating the fewer caches to be published. The fewer caches that there are out there to be found the fewer places there would be with geocachers tramping about destroying the environment.

 

[+QClan]

ANY cache within .2 of another cache would be designated a PT cache which would be equal to 1/10 ( or 1/20 ? ) of a smile'e. Once you had 10 mini smile'es they would automatically become one full smile'e.

 

That's pretty generous. I would have required the entire power trail to be found to get one smiley. It's a single endeavor, so it deserves one credit.

 

I can't decide if you are serious or not. I've found caches in small parks a tenth of a mile apart. I wouldn't call them power trails.

 

In fact, two of my hides are just over a tenth of a mile apart. They're designed for kids and are fun and easy finds. Certainly not film cans!

[+wimseyguy]

 

As for the rest, I'm just making suggestions to protect our environment, that is important, no?

 

If you really wanted to protect the environment you really should be advocating the fewer caches to be published. The fewer caches that there are out there to be found the fewer places there would be with geocachers tramping about destroying the environment.

 

And think of all of the pixels and bytes wasted in threads like these too.

 

[nonaeroterraqueous]

ANY cache within .2 of another cache would be designated a PT cache which would be equal to 1/10 ( or 1/20 ? ) of a smile'e. Once you had 10 mini smile'es they would automatically become one full smile'e.

 

That's pretty generous. I would have required the entire power trail to be found to get one smiley. It's a single endeavor, so it deserves one credit.

 

I can't decide if you are serious or not. I've found caches in small parks a tenth of a mile apart. I wouldn't call them power trails.

 

I thought about arguing that point, too, but I chose to limit my argument to the value of a power trail and not the definition of one. I agree with you that 0.1 miles does not make a power trail, so I'll politely excuse myself from this debate and let you take it up with BAMBOOZLE, directly.

Edited May 18, 2013 by nonaeroterraqueous

[+uxorious]

You know, I used to work with a guy just like the OP, except he was into CB radio, not Geocaching.

 

He would get home from work, grab a couple beers, and settle down in front of his CB, and proceed to stir the pot. He got great pleasure out of getting other CBers riled up, and arguing.

 

At coffee break he would brag about how easy it was to get others riled up, and just which buttons to push.

 

Kind of pathetic really.

[+BAMBOOZLE]

ANY cache within .2 of another cache would be designated a PT cache which would be equal to 1/10 ( or 1/20 ? ) of a smile'e. Once you had 10 mini smile'es they would automatically become one full smile'e.

 

That's pretty generous. I would have required the entire power trail to be found to get one smiley. It's a single endeavor, so it deserves one credit.

 

I can't decide if you are serious or not. I've found caches in small parks a tenth of a mile apart. I wouldn't call them power trails.

 

In fact, two of my hides are just over a tenth of a mile apart. They're designed for kids and are fun and easy finds. Certainly not film cans!

 

You are correct of course. I still like my idea though.....strictly apply it to PT's and award mini-smile's for each find. Many PT's employ standard hide techniques like hanging bisons that can take time to find. Even Route 66 can take a couple of minutes each so 10 finds would take 20 min. or more to log. That would compare favorably to about what it would take to grab you're average non PT cache.

[+BAMBOOZLE]

That's why I think power trails should be moved to their own website. Power trail "caching" has very little to do with geocaching. With the latter the point is to actually find geocaches.

 

That kind of logical thinking could get you nominated for geocacher of the year for 2013.

 

I second the nomination.

[+wmpastor]

I know of one guy who did one of those big power trails out west and actually stopped at each one. One he couldn't find and he posted a DNF on it. The cache owner congratulated him because the cache wasn't actually hidden, yet dozens of other people gleefully posted finds on it as they drove by doing only some of the caches in the big power trail.

 

Funny and sad.

Right - the sad part is that all those passer-bys should each have thrown down a throwdown. Negligent, I tell ya!

[+wmpastor]

You know, I used to work with a guy just like the OP, except he was into CB radio, not Geocaching.

 

He would get home from work, grab a couple beers, and settle down in front of his CB, and proceed to stir the pot. He got great pleasure out of getting other CBers riled up, and arguing.

 

At coffee break he would brag about how easy it was to get others riled up, and just which buttons to push.

 

Kind of pathetic really.

I'll say it again - if you take the OP's statements as wry or sarcastic commentary, his comments actually poke fun at the power trail phenomenon, in a "Waiting-for-Godot-esque" way!

[+wmpastor]

That's why I think power trails should be moved to their own website. Power trail "caching" has very little to do with geocaching. With the latter the point is to actually find geocaches.

 

That kind of logical thinking could get you nominated for geocacher of the year for 2013.

 

I second the nomination.

Is this separate-website-for-power-trails idea bringing diverse geocachers together, or is it causing divisions?

[nonaeroterraqueous]

Actually, can we get one of these attributes in place to make it easier for people to ignore power trails? You could filter for it in your pocket query. It could be really useful.

 

[+Roman!]

You know, I used to work with a guy just like the OP, except he was into CB radio, not Geocaching.

 

He would get home from work, grab a couple beers, and settle down in front of his CB, and proceed to stir the pot. He got great pleasure out of getting other CBers riled up, and arguing.

 

At coffee break he would brag about how easy it was to get others riled up, and just which buttons to push.

 

Kind of pathetic really.

 

Please don't pretend you know anything about me.

 

 

yet dozens of other people gleefully posted finds on it as they drove by doing only some of the caches in the big power trail.

 

I have been wondering how some people get 3459 finds in a year or two of caching. Some with 9875 finds as well in 4 or 5 years. Either you are retired and caching is all you do or a lot are just "I drove/walked/flew by it so I can log it".

 

Or you go on an awesome trip with your kids, have your son experience his first time driving on route 66 2 days before his 16th birthday and all in all have an awesome time as do your kids and then you spend a fun week with friends in Idaho.

 

How much less awesome would it have been if, instead of finding 3000 caches, you spent the same amount of time and only found 300? It seems to me that you'd be spending a lot more time actually interacting with your family if you found fewer caches.

 

Actually I found under 1000 caches that trip and I left it up to my kids how to long to cache each day, as we never would have went there if not for the Route 66 caches I really hate to break it to you but it is the reason we had an awesome time.

 

Just because you don't like it doesn't mean no one should.

Edited May 18, 2013 by Roman!

[+Sharks-N-Beans]

That's why I think power trails should be moved to their own website. Power trail "caching" has very little to do with geocaching. With the latter the point is to actually find geocaches.

 

That kind of logical thinking could get you nominated for geocacher of the year for 2013.

 

I second the nomination.

Is this separate-website-for-power-trails idea bringing diverse geocachers together, or is it causing divisions?

This really is a great idea. Power trails are popular enough to hold their own. The containers are small and insignificant as to not be mistaken for a Geocache.

[4wheelin_fool]

Isn't there some kind of rule about obvious trolling?

 

Apparently they've made an exception in the OP's case cause we get a thread like this every couple weeks or so.

 

They are throwdown powertroll threads spaced apart every 5.28 weeks or so, but somehow I still feel the compulsion to log every one..

[+The_Incredibles_]

Power trails are popular enough to hold their own. The containers are small and insignificant as to not be mistaken for a Geocache.

 

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++1

[+Roman!]

Power trails are popular enough to hold their own. The containers are small and insignificant as to not be mistaken for a Geocache.

 

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++1

 

I take it you've never done the thunderbird or train in Idaho, those containers are larger than 90% of the geocaches out there.

[+wmpastor]

Isn't there some kind of rule about obvious trolling?

 

Apparently they've made an exception in the OP's case cause we get a thread like this every couple weeks or so.

 

They are throwdown powertroll threads spaced apart every 5.28 weeks or so, but somehow I still feel the compulsion to log every one..

L

M

A

O